Metapattern > information exchange engineering > paradigm change
We are experiencing a practically limitless scale of interconnectivity. It’s no longer sufficient to think inside-out. We have to shift to thinking, tooling and so on in an outside-in manner.
in: Do you run an ERP software company?
I’m sure that Einstein’s first concern when he hit upon his theory of relativity was not at all being backward compatible with Newton’s physical science. For genuine innovation, you have to be prepared to shift paradigm. As it almost never fails, though, the newer paradigm encompasses the older as one possible, simple case.
in: note 23.23
Metapattern involves a paradigm shift to eliminate assumptions that have become counterproductive at the emerging scale of global, instant information interconnectivity.
in: How so-called core components are missing the point
Referring to a paradigm shift should emphasize that essentially a change in outlook is required.
Metapattern can help give positive direction, first of all by making the need for a paradigm shift more readily recognizable.
The difficulty of a genuine paradigm shift may be explained that, in
this case, it already takes the perspective of interdependency to
recognize limits to independency.
Corollary: A person can only jump over his own shadow when (s)he
allows a stronger light from a different direction to illuminate it as
a debilitating illusion. Of course, always a new shadow results
…
in: Ontology for interdependency: steps to an ecology of information management
[T]he nature of her innovation aggravates matters of communication with her contemporaries. Her philosophy of variety, with its already distinct — as we would now call it — postmodern flavor doesn't, and couldn't, match the modernism only emerging as late-nineteenth-century science. From a modernist perspective, a definite conceptual position is in order, but that is exactly what Welby urges to escape. [… A]ny fixed position continues to project an obstacle to whatever theory starts from variety. It can only be overcome when variety is methodically controlled, just as Welby announces that it should.
in: Victoria Welby's significs meets the semiotic ennead
The recognition of subject and situation as 'positive' concepts implies yet another metamorphosis from one postmodernism into the next modernism.
in: Mannoury's significs, or a philosophy of communal individualism
[L]ack of awareness about so-called first principles or axioms and about their limited reach or relativity poses a serious threat to an especially multidisciplinary effort such as studies in information management. Productive cooperation, discussion, etcetera, immediately come to a halt when participants deny the importance — or even the existence — of realistic differences.
in: Multiple axiomatization in information management
The failure to address the ontological issue explicitly, and with necessary and sufficient rigor, seems to have obstructed a fundamental shift.
in: The ontological atom of behavior: toward a logic for information modeling beyond the classics
It is the dilemma of any genuine paradigm shift. It is impossible to rationally convince somebody of a framework that already needs to be understood in order to understand its explanation. That is why a shift must occur, i.e. a leap of faith to different axioms.
in: On "nil" modality and Metapattern
For getting results, it helps to recognize which points have been made before and why they didn’t come across. Then, it’s not the idea you should concentrate on, but rather its acceptance. For that, however, adequate ideas still seem to be lacking …
in: note 47.9
As singularity of perspective is often implicit, it is all the more difficult to overcome. Its proponents resist the necessary paradigm shift all the more stubbornly because awareness is lacking of paradigms being at stake.
in: Perspectivism in federated practice
A qualitatively different framework is required for information management in the network age. It is identified as a formally extended complementarity.
in: Metapattern for complementarity modeling
For living design, the order must be radically reversed. Since people have been effectively indoctrinated by logical atomism, however, and still are, for that matter, they find it near impossible to take a contextualistic turn. We are denying interdependency at our peril. We fail to commit ourselves to partake in interdependency — as if it is at all possible to extricate ourselves: hubris — because we feel we lack the formalism for acting accordingly. Actually, when you come to think of it, that is really quite stupid.
in: Invitation to contextualism
When you no longer aim at explanatory unity, but complementarity, the traditional obstacle is completely irrelevant. So, Bohr turned around and took off in the more or less opposite direction for securing consistency from variety.
in: note 53.8
When attempts fail repeatedly, as is the case with so-called IT at exploding cost, isn’t it about time to reconsider assumptions?
in: note 53.11
Context, indeed … I am only too aware of how it takes a struggle to explain contextualism in plain writing.
in: note 53.13
The problem with people who pride themselves on their rationality
seems to be, though, that something needs to be understood for it to be
… understood. But then, is contextualism ever possible to
understand from, for example, logical atomism? No egg, no chicken
… Many people allow no room for “novelty” in the
sense of “disrupting” a habitual hypothesis, and
substituting another for it.
Where to start? Surely, the answer lies in the education of our
children. But what about us as educators? Aren’t we the ones
falsely priding ourselves?
in: note 53.18
Please be aware that especially in IT, most practitioners still adhere to what I have referred to as a common mistake. […] Please note, this is not meant condescendingly. For good reasons it has once become established as the tradition in IT. There are quite different reasons now, though, with the Internet as exemplary for the exchange perspective. Giving up on a tradition is difficult, if at all possible.
in: note 53.28
Metapattern is a method for conceptual modeling.
Why would anyone even consider using it? The reason should be that the
modeling method s/he currently applies, leads to ever-growing problems
(including run-away inefficiencies). And why is that? It could be a
matter of limiting axioms (also read: basic concepts, principles,
paradigm, worldview).
Actually, most people remain largely, if not totally, unaware of the
paradigm underlying their working method(s). Then, they wouldn’t
recognize an alternative and the idea of a paradigm change seems
absurd.
in: note 56.5
The difficulty lies in the underlying paradigm. It just is … different from what people still believe. Their belief/paradigm being implicit makes it all the more difficult, not to say impossible, to argue for another paradigm. [… U]nderstanding arguments in favour of — adopting — some paradigm requires having adopted it beforehand. In order to succeed in shifting a paradigm, one must start to be lucky in meeting someone having both trust (in the paradigmatic proposal) and influence (pointing and moving other people in that that direction).
in: note 56.19
People only welcome innovation as long it is not … new, not really.
in: note 56.24
The problem is one of trying to convince the reader of a paradigm that s/he must already possess in order to be convinced. (And that is why only a jump of focus helps :-). What I do continue to try is explaining how Metapattern might be used, and what understanding the ennead contributes for highly practical purposes, thereby presenting or at least referring to the ennead yet again.
in: note 56.24
When, indeed, we are dependent for a paradigm shift on random switches from focus to focus, it may take some time to happen. It is all the comfort that may be derived from the ennead.
in: note 56.24
When, indeed, Metapattern is a qualitatively different modeling method, there is a lot of ground to cover. Or, rather, depth to reassess.
in: note 71.20
When attempts at solving problems continue to fail, at some point in time it seems reasonable to question basic assumptions — often implicitly — held so far and methods — often routinely — applied so far. When trying different assumptions et cetera, of course it is extremely difficult to let go of the previous set.
in: note 71.21
[So far,] I didn’t succeed in convincing any business or government organization, or academic institution for that matter, of the need for a shift in scope and consequently in both paradigm and modeling method for information exchange.
in: note 71.25
Changing paradigm (also read: worldview, metaphysics, et cetera) is notoriously difficult, if at all possible for the person holding — hanging on to? — it subconsciously.
in: note 71.40
[M]ost people don’t recognize the need for the paradigm shift. In fact, often they are not at all aware they are thinking and acting from some paradigm. So, since we are discussing trying to facilitate information exchange regardless of scale limits, what matters to us here is that mostly implicitly they still follow the application programming paradigm expecting it to help overcome the crisis. Forget it!
in: note 71.40
[People] are well advised not to continue with what has proven to fail at what is already for some time now really a qualitatively different scale of instantaneous interconnection between individuals. When decision makers don’t adjust, I find they limit themselves … and the rest of us. And it seems we can also not rely on so-called it-professionals to initiate the long overdue paradigm shift. Indeed, the surest way of never achieving something useful, is to stick to an incommensurable paradigm.
in: note 71.40